User talk:Reithan/Archive 1
Please clarify which skills dont synergize on the builds talk page, then I'll clarify how they do synergize. Thanks.[[User:Teh Uber Pwnzer|''' --Teh Uber Pwnzer']] 01:02, 29 September 2007 (CEST) :* Oath shot isn't really needed, as the skills refresh before the spirits die. The only time it'll be useful is if the spirits get killed prematurely, in which case they're probably on to you and good luck getting them all up at that point. :* Fertile Season makes people die less - which triggers EoE less. This may create a fun effect due to the condition spreading and degen as people low on life will spontaneously die when the spirit dies, but it's totally unnecessary and the build would be stronger without it. :* Running an EoE bomb build in PvP is pretty much an assurance that you will be suiciding, thus, consume corpse is unnecessary. :It would work better if you could cause more conditions, more degen and/or be semi-usefull when not bombing. To that effect I submitted the bombing build I've been using - with the addition of a few new GWEN skills. See: Build:N/R Mutually Assured Destruction. Extra points if you ''get the build's name. ;) Reithan 02:15, 29 September 2007 (CEST) ::That's what Fertile Season is there for, to set of the EoE bomb. Without it, it's more like an EoE spatter. A few here, a few there. FS ends and suddenly everyone's down to 20% heath, and then EoE starts going off and everyone dies. Oath Shot is pretty unnecessary, I was running half of this build in AB and I could keep three EoEs up constantly with Serpent's Quickness. Besides, in CMs, does it really matter if you die? :D --InternetLOL 02:21, 29 September 2007 (CEST) :::Fertile Season isn't needed to set it off - mass degen will get enough people low enough that it'll chain. 1 person dies, which kills another, and another, which kills 3 more, which kills everyone. Just add more conditions to get everyone lower with Pestilence and Toxicity. Disease, Poison, Bleed, if you could find a friend to start spamming Deep Wound for you - you'd REALLY be set. :::Lacerate's also just the PERFECT elite for this build - a spammable spirit that not only intensifies, but CAUSES a condition? Utter pwnage. And it's spammable. Serpent's Quickness wouldn't be a bad addition if you want to be able to blanket multiple areas. Reithan 02:27, 29 September 2007 (CEST) PW:ARCHIVE Don't remove comments from talk pages, thanks. — Skakid9090 04:38, 29 September 2007 (CEST) :Sorry, wasn't aware of that rule. Though I do think I remember something about comments being required to add something to the discussion. :Reithan 04:41, 29 September 2007 (CEST) ::No, there isn't, and mine was completely relevant. — Skakid9090 04:42, 29 September 2007 (CEST) :::Yeah, there is. , I'll quote it "When discussing a build, try to be constructive. If you like it, say why. If you don't, suggest possible improvements. This will support the author and all readers in making better builds." Now, stop trolling my build. :::Reithan 04:46, 29 September 2007 (CEST) ::::Am I allowed to remove this from my user talk page? ::::Reithan 05:16, 29 September 2007 (CEST) :::::You can archive it, cut it from here and move it to User talk:Reithan/Archive 1. Then put this on top of your page — Skakid9090 05:19, 29 September 2007 (CEST) Grammar I'm fairly certain one wouldn't say: "Shock is use by ...". --[[User:Edru_viransu|'Edru viransu']]//[[User_talk:Edru_viransu|'QQ about me']]/sysop 07:51, 29 September 2007 (CEST) :I double checked it. "Shock is often run by" is correct, not "Shock is often ran by". Not sure what else to say about it. >.> Reithan 07:53, 29 September 2007 (CEST) Signing your comments Sign your comments directly after your actual comment. Do not make another line entirely for your signature. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 23:24, 2 October 2007 (CEST) :In fact, not every sentence needs seperate lines either. You can put one sentence after another to form a paragraph. When you have separate lines for each sentence, it makes the page difficult to edit. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 23:29, 2 October 2007 (CEST) ::Yikes! Did you have to take out ALL the spacing? It's a pretty hairy wall-o-text, now. Reithan 23:30, 2 October 2007 (CEST) ::: It's really annoying and I believe it goes against one of the formatting policies. If not, it at least goes against a precedent established since the earliest days of wikis. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 23:32, 2 October 2007 (CEST) ::::I understand paragraphs and all, but can't you even seperate the paragraphs out? Reithan 23:34, 2 October 2007 (CEST) :::::Well ofc you can seperate paragraphs out, but every single sentence is not a full paragraph. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 23:43, 2 October 2007 (CEST) Escalation Something I've observed, both on GuildWiki (when it had a build section) and on this Wiki is that once an author feels slighted, things tend to escalate pretty quickly. And, unfortunately, all too often, such arguments escalate to the point of no return. The most common outcome is that the author is eventually banned for NPA and, even after the ban expires, the author is unlikely to ever return. So, let me say a couple of things in the hopes of preventing such escalation. First, please note that you are free to leave the community. We can't please everyone. Inevitably, there will always be people dissatisfied with the "system." As most people eventually learn, railing against the system is not likely to effect change in said system. This isn't an attempt to "silence" your viewpoint, I've merely observed that the arguments tend to dissolve into illogical bickering and flaming as opposed to any sort of rational argument (on both sides). My advice is to take some time, distance yourself from any current arguments, and reevaluate your priorities. Once you've calmed down a little, if you'd still like to be part of the community, then by all means, you're welcome to be a part of it. If, on the other hand, you feel that you are incapable of being a productive member of the community, then perhaps it isn't the right community for you. The sad truth is that all too often, such arguments end badly. It's only once in every dozen cases or so that people are capable of reaching the brink and returning to be productive members of the community. Well, I've hopefully given you something to think about. Cheers. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 08:09, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :Can I ask for a little help then? I'd love to drop all the stupid and time-wasting arguements and just enjoy contributing to the wiki, but everything I post keeps getting flammed and trolled and I just don't know what to do about it. I don't mind my build getting unfavored or deleted, I just want it done in a reasonable, flame-free manner, and I'd LOVE it if this could include some sort of positive commentary, like, "This doesn't work because of ____, take a look at this build. You might want to consider ____ in the future." :If this sort of this starts again - which it already is, how do I stop it? Is there a way to contact an admin, or to halt a conversation or pull a build if it's being targetted like that? — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 08:20, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::That is being conveyed to you in a way respective to the way you're dragging on continuous debates from builds onto peoples' talk pages. For example, your bow war build being "This doesn't work because of bows not being DPS" and "take a look at Build:warrior using axe/sword/hammer". It's there if you look hard enough. =) ::By the way, don't mind me. I'm just blunt. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 08:22, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::There's a difference between being blunt and between following an arguement from a usertalk page to pretty much every build I've posted and spamming flames and deletion markers on every one. And no, neither of those CONSTRUCTIVE comments are listed on the page you referenced. Just a bunch of flames - AGAIN. You're not being blunt. You're harassing me and being a jerk. PLEASE STOP. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 08:26, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::For starters, I'm an Admin, so asking me might work. Additionally, the Admin noticeboard (which can be found on the navigation bar to the left of the screen) is an excellent way to notify Administrators if a situation gets out of hand (we created PvX:MAA for a reason). As to the first part of the post, you need to realize that sometimes, you won't get the constructive criticism you feel a build deserves. We see so many terrible builds on this site daily that yes, I think we all become a bit prejudiced, but the truth of the matter is that people are simply going to give you the blunt and honest truth. If that truth is that a build is bad, that's the response you're likely to get. I think a big part of the problem is that once a debate gets going, it tends to broil down to a few central debaters who simply "shout" the same thing over and over again. If you want people to take your builds seriously, take the time to compose well-thought-out responses to peoples questions and comments that go beyond simply answering the question but actually explain the answer in a well-though-out manner. That's the best advice I can give you. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 08:26, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::Oh, and as far as Rapta goes, I've been following the back-and-forth, and never once have I seen him make a response using arguments that didn't relate to the build. And being blunt is an invaluable skill on this Wiki to be honest. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 08:27, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::One last thing. Try moving your builds to Testing. Trial is usually a rather unproductive stage, and, in this case, it seems to me that a good way to stop the bickering would simply be to see what other people have to say. Theories of elitist conspiracies notwithstanding, if people agree with Rapta, i.e. if the build is unfavored, then you'll have some form of empirical evidence that he was right, whereas if the build does get favored, you'll have evidence to the contrary. Either way, it'll end a seemingly pointless back and forth. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 08:34, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::(edit conflict) You're not reading the deletion markers, then. They provide you to a link to PW:WELL, which you should probably read over before posting more builds. Second, they give a link/example to a build that already exists which works better or is a dupe of what you've just written. The "constructive" part is there. Like I said, you just need to look hard enough to find it. It's a lot more obvious than it may seem. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 08:29, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::Honestly, I'm trying. I'm really really trying to make good, thought out and mostly typo-free responses to each and every response in discussions I'm involved in. But most of the time it seems like they're not even read. There's also, in my opinion, a fundamental difference between being blunt and between simply trolling and flaming to get a rise out of someone. You can be blunt and still be constructive. In fact, it's often easier to be constructive while being blunt. But it seems like a lot of people here are just jerks and then go, "Oh, I'm blunt, btw." Trolling is not being blunt. Flamming is not being blunt. Being blunt is when you have something you want to say and you don't take the time to be nice about it. You lose your claim to "blunt" what all you want to say is, "Neener neener, I don't like you and your build sucks and you smell. Get off my wiki, newb!" — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 08:32, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::Show me an example of where Rapta has violated NPA (i.e. flamed you). Also, in a sense, trolling is why this Wiki works, at least as far as you've defined it. If people didn't sit around, staring at Recent changes, then new builds wouldn't be rated/commented on. Being involved in a number of debates on a variety of builds hardly constitutes trolling. Oh, and as I've noted on the talk page of the Minion Blaster, precedent is on Rapta's side when he says that it should be deleted since it already exists as a variant of an existing favored build. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 08:34, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::::I never said he violated NPA, unless you count just generally being a prick towards someone a personal attack...as for the definition of trolling, let's use this one: "4. trolling Act of appearing on internet forums and boards with malicious intent. Trolling includes... ''-batting people to flame at you'' ''-putting the forum down and encouraging people to leave.'' ''-flaming'' ''-spamming'' ''-using several identities on a board to support your own arguments / stage pretend arguments'' ''-generally being a dick on a power trip.'' Some trolls claim they actions benefit others. These trolls are also twats" ::::::I think that basically covers it. As for variant of an existing build, at least 1/2 the bar is different. The build works better, faster and easier than the other build as well, and plays a bit different, too. How much needs to be changed before something's not just a variant? If this is the precedant, then I could find a lot of builds on the wiki that need to be consolidated as variants. Probably about 1/2 the warrior builds at least. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 08:42, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::::I doubt it. So much is about gameplay and tactics. I mean, look at PvP Mesmers. Almost without exception, if you look at GvG Mesmers atm, they all use 7 skills the same with the elite as the only difference. And yet, we retain all of them. Why? Because they are all for a different purpose with surprisingly different gameplay. A variant isn't about number of skills different, it's about whether those skills change something substantial about the build. In the case of your Rt/N, and I beat all 3 campaigns with a Minion Bomber, the difference is actually much more minuscule than the number of skill changes would suggest. As to the Troll issue. 1: Rapta isn't flaming. 2: Rapta isn't encouraging you to leave. 3: A discussion doesn't really constitute spamming. 4: He's not using sock puppets. 5: I'd argue that he's being more blunt than being a dick. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 08:45, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::::(edit conflict) I can bring a Shock Axe warrior with Agonizing Chop instead of Bull's Strike, Critical Chop instead Executioner's Strike, Tiger Stance instead of Frenzy, and Sprint instead of Rush. That's 4 skills different from the existing Shock Axe. That doesn't make it warrant its own build page, however. A build's existance is not dependant upon how many skills are different than a pre-existing one. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 08:48, 8 October 2007 (CEST) Actually, he did encourage me to leave on Skakid's takl page, but I kinda asked for that one. He's not overtly flaming, but by simultaneously starting multiple arguements on multiple builds of mine right after an arguement he was involved in was close makes me 100% sure he's baiting me to flame him. It also constitutes a form of spamming. Also, being blunt means being straightforward, truthful and honest in a comment, usually briefly, with little or no regard to the listening party's feelings. I'd say he's being rather the opposite of blunt, as he's being obtuse, a bit wordy and obviously has a regard for my feelings, in that he's trying to stomp on them. I'll repeat the question of before though, if that build IS simply a variant, how do I add it as a variant to the existing build? In fact, in cases where an existing build isn't as good as one of it's variants, is there a way to swap the two? (this obviously being AFTER the variant would be added to the build - if that's possible). — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 08:56, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :I'm honestly not sure what you want. Your build already exists as a variant of the other, that's the entire point. Are you looking for it to be a separate bar on the Explosive Creation Page? Also, I see no reason to swap out the bar of a build whose current rating is Excellent. If someone looking at the page thought that the Jagged Bones variant was better, they could piece it together from the variants section. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 08:58, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::Though, we're thoroughly off the original topic of this header, and this conversation would probably be better on the talk page of that build now...oh wait, it is there...yeah, same convo on 2 seperate pages...I don't really know. I mean, if the basic idea is Build 1 & 2 both have the same purpose/goal, so they're just variants, you can pretty much consilidate all of this wiki into like 4 builds, "DPS", "SPIKE", "HEAL/PROT" and "UTILITY" and just make a list of skills that work well for each. But I suspect you're just over-simplifying things. These two do, probably share enough commonality to be simply variants of each other though/ ::So, the question, again, is VERY simply: How do I add this to the original build as a variant? Also, is there any way in which a variant, if deemed by the community to be better than the main listed variant of a build can swap places with that main listing? ::To explain further - if you have a build, and at the bottom, there's a variant listed. That variant is better than the main build described at the top. Is there any way to make that variant the main build, and move that main build down as a variant of the other? ::NOTE: I am NOT saying my build is better or this will/could/should happen. Just asking IF it could happen. ::I also remember PvX:WELL having a rule saying a build can be removed if there is another build which does it's job BETTER. I argue this build, even if it is 'the same' is BETTER than the other. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 09:06, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::Again, it already is a variant, you don't have to do anything. As to switching out a bar, you'd have to generate community consensus on that builds talk page that the variant was better. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 09:08, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::Also, I'm not really that sure this does exist as a variant on that page. Each individual skill exists as a note...but no note is made to the possible combos of those variant skills. This takes several of those variants and uses them together, replacing other things in that build to create more synergy for more damage output in a faster, more effective, easier-to-use package that even has additional fringe benefits. Can there be a variant note added there to at least mention this combination? ::::For community consensus, how is that measured? Would it need to just be agreed upon, or voted on or something? — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 09:12, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::You see, PvX:WELL covers that build with an "Excellent" rating. Your current argument in favour of your version of the existing bomber is your "playtesting". What you're wanting to do is to disregard an entire Wiki's for the sake of your "playtesting" results. That undermines the entire vetting process. Furthermore, your version of the build already exists under the current build. Putting such basic ideas and policies together, and there is no reason why this "Minion Blaster" should be kept. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 09:13, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::::As an addendum, the entire point of the varients section is to place flexibility onto the existing build with alternative skill choices. Making something that is a variant "mandatory" defeats the purpose of having a variants section at all. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 09:15, 8 October 2007 (CEST) No, I'm not saying that at all. Obviously it would be pretentious to suggest that the build just be swapped out without any sort of community support, but I honestly feel, after playing both builds, that this variant is better than that one. I also think that anyone who plays both is likely to agree. Also, playtesting may not be on junior-high spelling bee lists, but it is a word. It's used extensively in pretty much any industry related to anything that can be played. Such as RPGs, MMOs, other video games, board games, LARPs...pretty much anything that can be played can be "playtested" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playtest. I'd like to get this variant combination places SOMEPLACE, hopefully somewhere near or on the other build's page so that is CAN be discussed as a possible UPGRADE to that existing build. Technically, as you're saying it's already just a variant, it CAN'T replace the existing build, as you can't replace something with itself. But you should be able to update a build's page to reflect upgrades and evolutions to that build based either on newfound skills, combos, or newly released material. Just because a build's already "Excellent" doesn't mean it's "Perfect". If it can be improved upon, why not? — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 09:22, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :I assume rapta put playtesting between quotation marks because it isn't mandatory. We hardly have the time to playtest all builds we vote/comment on. (hmm, my spelling checker's underlining it red atm) –Ichigo724 09:25, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::Some spell-checkers like it better as "play-testing", and no, he already stated that he doesn't think playtesting is a word on another page. I forget which, he's spamming most of the ones I watch, atm. You'll have to find it yourself if you care to. I also understand the point that you can't playtest every build, however, I think a lot of the misunderstanding here could be avoided by doing so. ::I'd like to say again we're completely off-topic here again. Any discussion of a specific build should probably take place on that build's talk page - not on my user page - even if it is my build - or rather my variant combo on an existing build... The initial discussion here was how to avoid the nearly inevitable flame & troll wars that seem to be a daily occurance here in this wiki, and further, what to do if/when one arises? — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 09:29, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :A build rated "Excellent" is already the highest standard on this wiki. It is perfect. It should not be touched unless it was affected by a nerfbat. None of that has happened to the existing, vetted, excellent build. You are, again, begging the question, that you "playtested" it and therefore it is better. That is wrong. There is little base to your argument. You're continually restating the same things - you want your version to be in the existing page, or in its own page. You believe that your "combination" needs to be in the build. Every new user comes onto this wiki and tries the same thing, regardless of how they try to mask this. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 09:31, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::Excellent != Perfect ::Excellent Excellent ::I'm not stating I tested it, therefor swap. I'm say I tested it, I THINK it's better, I'd like that to be evaluated. If you refuse to even contemplate that a build could possibly be improved, simply because of it's current rating, I'd have to say that's very short-sighted. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 09:35, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :::No, you have it wrong. Excellent, in the eyes of this wiki, is the "perfect" standard. It is the highest standard available, and is therefore, considered to be perfect. Any attempts to hijack excellent builds and modify the build will end in failure. That is how this wiki is run without undermining its own policies. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 09:40, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::::Show me that policy. Link please? If it's not 5-5-5 across the board, on every vote, it's not perfect. In YOUR opinion that build's the best minion bomber build possible. In my opinion, this variant (variant = same build, btw) is superior. If you refuse to even let the community SEE the variant and comment on it, I don't know what your reasoning can be. Either 1) they'll support you. yay, you. or 2) They'll support me. Possibly you could have a 3rd option where they deadlock on the issue, but that's unlikely. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 09:43, 8 October 2007 (CEST) Oh, I hereby refuse to talk about that specific build and issue on this page, please continue the conversation on the CORRECT page. I'd actually like to finish the discussion that was started here, PLEASE? — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 09:44, 8 October 2007 (CEST) Edrama fucking sucks. Post your variant in the variants section, and then list it on the talk page for a possible Build Revamp. Not a big deal. Stop arguing, or QQ. [[User:Readem|'Readem']] (''talk''* ) 09:48, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::I agree, Edrama is the worst. Any ideas on how to avoid it, or what to do once it starts with the kind of vengeance the current bout has? — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 09:55, 8 October 2007 (CEST) :It's already in the Variants section. He seems to have trouble finding it. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 09:52, 8 October 2007 (CEST) ::This is a conversation about edrama and how to avoid/stop it. Please direct conversation about that build to that build's talk page, for the love of god. — ( \ ʇ ) uɐɥʇıǝɹ 09:54, 8 October 2007 (CEST)